Skip to main content

In Chile and Australia, the Shadow of Japan

By

Here’s a bit of news that might seem unusual at first:

{…} Chile and the United States signed an accord on Friday intended to help Chile develop a nuclear energy program.

Chile, a country that imports much of its energy, is considering building nuclear reactors to try to fill an expected energy gap in the next few decades. But the developing nuclear crisis in Japan has complicated the debate in Chile, which suffered an 8.8-magnitude earthquake last year that caused widespread destruction.

That may be more a question of timing. There are compelling reasons to proceed:

Chilean officials are concerned that limits on the amount of energy the country may import and its outdated power grid will compromise the rapid growth of its economy. Chile will require a doubling of its energy supplies over the next 12 years if demand for electricity continues to grow at 6 percent a year, said Jorge Zanelli, a physicist who carried out a study of nuclear energy in 2007 for the previous Chilean government. More than 60 percent of that increase would have to be met with energy from fossil fuels if nuclear energy is not part of the equation, Mr. Zanelli said.

There will be more to say.

At the present time, it seems striking – as it has in a lot of instances – that nuclear energy is generating electricity all over the world – safely, with no nerves jangling – and deals and treaties continue to be struck – in their full measure – and countries will proceed as they see fit – with Japan in the mix where it was not before but not necessarily in the determinative spot.

We sometimes say “wait and see” when there is more to be known. So – let’s wait and see.

---

And from Australia’s The Age:

Australia's supporters of nuclear energy are sticking to their view that it does have a place in this country, despite the reactor crisis in Japan.

As well they should.

'It's had a remarkable performance of providing safe power over the last 30 years, and if something goes wrong it should be in the context of its achievements,'' Mr [Hugh] Morgan, former Western Mining chief executive, told The Sunday Age.

True. The whole article is worth reading.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more